Enforcement 

of  the 

Prohibition  Law 

By 

Hon.  John  G.  Sargent 

Attorney  General  of  the 
United  States 


Press  of  The  American  Issue,  Westeruille,  Ohio,  U.  S.  A. 


ADDRESS  BEFORE  WOMAN’S  COMMITTEE 
ON  LAW  ENFORCMMENT 


[Washington,  D.  C.,  April  13,  1926] 


Madame  the  President  and  Members  of  the 
Women’s  Committee  on  Lazv  Enforcement: 

In  approaching  the  subject  before  3"0U  at 
this  social  gathering  of  the  representatives  of 
your  great  body,  I am  somewhat  at  a loss  how 
to  begin. 

To  me,  the  matter  of  having  the  law  ob- 
served, in  a country  under  a government  like 
ours,  seems  a very  simple  thing.  All  that  is 
necessary  is  that  each  member  of  each  famil}" 
in  each  community  in  each  State  shall  go  about 
his  and  her  business  each  day  with  the  pur- 
pose in  mind  to  obey  the  rules  made  by  society 
for  its  own  guidance.  But  it  happens  that 
there  are  here  and  there  among  us  persons 
who  do  not  have  such  purpose ; persons  who, 
instead  of  trying  to  earn  an  honest  living  by 
honest  toil,  undertake  to  get  the  means  of 
living  in  what  they  think  and  hope  will  be  an 
easier  way. 

We  must  remember  that  a living  for  all  must 
be  earned  by  all,  and  each  member  of  society 
who  does  not  by  some  useful  action  earn  his 
keep  increases  the  burden  of  the  rest  who  have 
to  earn  it  for  them. 

With  those  who  are  a burden  from  being 
mere  drones — shirks — we  need  not  further 
concern  ourselves  here ; with  those  who,  by 
active  preying  on  their  fellow-members  of  the 
social  body,  undertake  to  get  a living,  or  more 
than  a living — the  means  of  luxury — we  are 
here  very  much  concerned. 

With  those  who  undertake  to  set  aside  the 
rules  of  life  which  we  ourselves  have  made  and 

[3] 


satisfy  their  cravings  of  lust,  of  appetite,  of 
revenge,  of  malice  by  reprisals  on  individuals, 
on  the  community,  we  are  very  much  con- 
cerned. 

We  make  law  governing  the  relations  of 
individuals  to  each  other  and  their  property  and 
we  provide  courts  in  which  individuals  may 
seek  redress  for  violations  of  their  legal  rights 
by  other  individuals. 

We  make  law  governing  the  relations  of 
individuals  to  the  community  and  provide  by 
law  penalties  for  infraction  of  such  law.  The 
community  as  a body  cannot  well  impose  such 
penalties,  and  so  we  provide  courts  to  pass  on 
the  question  of  whether  there  has  been  an 
infraction  of  the  law  and  provide  representa- 
tives of  the  community  to  present  in  such 
courts  charges  against  persons  accused  of 
infractions  of  the  law — prosecuting  officers. 

What  is  the  duty  of  such  a representative  of 
the  community  toward  its  laws? 

It  seems  to  me  that  a prosecuting  officer, 
while  and  so  long  as  he  holds  his  place  as  the 
representative  of  the  law,  ought  not  to  take 
the  position  that  the  law  as  it  is  ought  not  to 
be  the  law. 

The  law  is  the  will  of  the  body  politic,  and 
we  are  in  our  places  by  the  will  of  the  body 
politic,  put  there  to  execute  that  will,  and  if 
we  go  about  declaring  in  speech  and  in  print 
that  the  law  ought  to  be  changed,  so  that  acts 
which  are  offenses  against  the  law  will  not  be 
offenses,  we  thereby  weaken  our  causes  in  the 

[4] 


minds  of  the  tribunals  before  whom  we  must 
try  them. 

I notice  on  the  letterheads  of  this  committee 
that  the  purpose  of  the  organizations  it  repre- 
sents is  to  encourage  the  enforcement  of  all 
the  law,  with  especial  emphasis  on  the  Eight- 
eenth Amendment  and  the  Volstead  act,  and 
I have  been  informed  by  some  of  your  officers 
that  you  are  particularly  anxious  for  an 
expression  of  my  views  on  that  subject. 

Let  me  say  that  what  my  views  are  is  not, 
as  I see  it,  of  much  greater  importance  than 
what  your  views  are.  I can  keep  the  machin- 
ery of  prosecution  of  violators  of  the  law  in 
motion,  but  you  can  make  the  results  of  such 
work  effective,  or  to  a considerable  extent 
impair  its  effectiveness. 

At  the  risk  of  being  accused  of  having  a 
single-track  mind  I wish  to  repeat  here,  in 
substance,  a few  observations  I have  before 
publicly  made  on  this  subject. 

In  this  country,  under  our  system  of  govern- 
ment, the  will  of  the  people,  expressed  by  their 
vote,  becomes  and  is  the  rule  of  conduct  which 
all  citizens  are  bound  to  observe  and  which  all 
citizens  or  aliens  must  be  compelled  to  observe. 
That  rule  of  conduct  creates  j;he  duty  of  every 
inhabitant  of  the  jurisdiction  doing  the  voting. 

The  Eighteenth  Amendment  is  the  law  of 
the  land. 

The  Volstead  act  is  the  law  of  the  land. 

Both  by  constitutional  command  of  the 

[5] 


whole  people  and  by  legislative  enactment  of 
their  representatives  in  Congress  it  has  been 
decreed  that  traffic  in  intoxicating  liquor  shall 
cease. 

There  is  no  room  for  discussion  as  to  what 
the  voters  of  the  country  have  said. 

There  is  no  halfway  place  in  the  command 
they  have  laid  upon  their  servants  chosen  and 
appointed  to  administer  the  law. 

But,  notwithstanding  that  the  law  is  as  it  is, 
notwithstanding  the  will  of  the  people  is  that 
this  traffic— and,  of  course,  the  drinking  of 
alcohol — shall  cease,  a considerable  number  of 
persons  insist  they  will  not  obey  the  law  and 
persist  in  the  traffic  to  supply  drink  for  them- 
selves and  others  who  are  willing  to  reward 
them  for  the  chances  they  take. 

Those  who  engage  in  the  business,  those 
who  furnish  the  business  by  buying  its  wares, 
and  some  who  do  not  wish  to  either  sell  or  buy 
liquor,  undertake  to  excuse  the  violators  by 
saying  over  and  over  that  this  law  is  an 
infringement  of  personal  liberty. 

They  declare  that  since  the  prohibition  law 
went  into  effect  it  has  never  been  practically 
in  effect ; 

That  it  has  been  a disastrous,  tragic  failure ; 

That  the  federal  government  is  powerless  to 
enforce  it,  because,  they  say,  “the  instinct  of 
personal  liberty  is  very  strong,”  “man  cannot 
be  made  over  by  law”  and  “thousands  of  the 
best  citizens  of  the  country  have  been  brought 
into  contact  with  the  bootlegger  and  have  no 

[61 


compunction  whatever  about  violating  the 
law.” 

Let  us  examine  these  propositions  briefly : 

Though  some  of  those  who  make  these 
claims  and  arguments  may  not — do  not — have 
in  mind  a purpose  to  make  the  thing  prohibited 
easier  to  procure  and  less  dangerous  to  make 
and  sell  by  those  who  would  provide  it,  never- 
theless such  is  the  effect  upon  the  execution 
of  the  law. 

Personal  liberty  to  do  what?  Anything 
except  to  facilitate  the  making,  sale  and  use  of 
intoxicants?  Why?  Any  reason  except  that 
the  use  of  them  may  not  be  interfered  with? 

What  other  result  can  follow  the  constant 
declaration  that  the  law  is  not  binding  on  the 
consciences  of  those  who  do  not  favor  its 
provisions  because  they  say  it  interferes  with, 
personal  liberty,  and  the  instinct  of  personal 
liberty  is  very  strong.  What  other  result  can 
follow  than  that  juries  will  hesitate  to  convict 
on  charges  of  violation  of  the  law? 

What  other  result  can  follow  than  that  those 
contemplating  engaging  in  the  traffic  will  be 
encouraged  by  the  thought  that  probably,  even 
if  detected  and  arrested,  conviction  will  not 
follow? 

No  compunction  about  violating  the  law? 
Violating  it  how?  What  for?  Anything  except 
to  provide  intoxicants  for  somebody  to  drink? 

No. 

Such  contentions,  when  made  by  those  who 
do  not  want  liquor  for  themselves,  who  would 

[7] 


not  intentionally  put  obstacles  in  the  way  of 
enforcement  of  the  law,  must  be  made  without 
realization  of  the  efifect  of  their  position. 

That  effect  can  be  and  is  only  to  weaken 
public  sentiment  in  favor  of  any  law  enforce- 
ment and  to  encourage  violation  of  all  law. 

It  is  only  a step — and  an  easy  one — for  the 
man  of  loose  moral  fiber  who  hears  and  reads 
that  men  of  education,  of  standing  and  influ- 
ence, aver  and  urge  that  he  is  not  in  conscience 
bound  to  give  allegiance  to  one  provision  of 
the  Constitution,  is  not  in  conscience  bound  to 
observe  one  statute,  because  it  interferes  with 
his  liberty  to  do  as  he  pleases  in  that  matter, 
to  come  to  the  conclusion  that  he  is  not  in 
conscience  bound  to  observe  another  law,  and 
then  another,  which  interferes  with  the  liberty 
he  would  have  to  do  some  other  act  but  for 
the  law,  and  when  he  is  told  that  many  of  the 
best  citizens  violate  a part  of  the  law  without 
compunction,  what  conclusion  can  he  reach  but 
that  he  may  violate  any  part  of  it  without 
compunction  ? 

The  difference  between  civilization  and  bar- 
barism is  in  the  presence  or  absence  of  law. 

The  very  idea  of  law  in  a community  carries 
with  it  the  surrender  of  individual  freedom  of 
action  for  the  good  of  the  whole  body. 

In  a state  of  barbarism  one  may  walk  or 
drive  where  he  please,  unless  the  “personal 
liberty”  of  another  stronger  than  he  interferes. 

In  Washington  one  must  drive  on  the  right- 
hand  side  of  the  street.  Why?  Because  the 

[8] 


community  has  decided  that  the  welfare  of  the 
whole,  of  which  he  is  a part,  demands  that  he 
be  deprived  of  liberty  to  drive  where  he  please 
and  compelled  to  go  on  the  right-hand  side. 

Does  anyone  contend  that  “man  cannot  be 
made  over  by  law”  in  this  matter? 

Does  anyone  contend  that  because  “the 
instinct  of  personal  liberty  is  very  strong”  he 
has  a right  to  endanger  the  safety  of  every  one 
in  the  street,  including  himself,  by  asserting 
his  personal  liberty  and  driving  on  the  left- 
hand  side? 

What  is  the  difference  between  insuring  the 
safety  of  travel  by  depriving  men  of  their 
personal  liberty  through  compelling  them  to 
drive  on  the  right  side  and  compelling  them  to 
be  sober  when  driving  through  depriving  them 
of  the  means  of  getting  drunk? 

The  real  source  of  the  embarrassment  to  the 
enforcement  of  the  law  is,  not  that  the  law 
interferes  with  personal  liberty — any  law 
which  has  any  effect  upon  the  conduct  of  the 
individuals  composing  society  does  that  and 
must  do  that — -but  that  so  many  well-inten- 
tioned persons,  thoughtlessly,  or  following 
some  process  of  unsound  reasoning,  join  hands 
with  those  who  intentionally  violate  the  law 
and  give  them  aid  and  comfort  in  attempting 
to  justify  their  unlawful  conduct. 

There  is  no  right  of  personal  liberty  to 
perpetuate  an  institution  which  the  law  con- 
demns. 

In  this  country  that  the  liquor  traffic  shall 

[9] 


be  exterminated  is  established  by  solemn  reso- 
lution of  the  electorate. 

That  it  ought  not  to  exist  is  admitted  by 
those  making  the  arguments  and  claims  I have 
been  discussing  when  they  say,  either  by  way 
of  preface  or  conclusion  to  every  discussion, 
“We  do  not  desire  to  bring  back  intoxicating 
liquor,”  “There  is  no  intention  ever  to  bring 
back  the  saloon.”  Those  who  say  this  honestly 
surely  cannot  have  thought  out  the  result  to 
which  their  arguments  tend. 

The  rest  “do  protest  too  much.” 

Again,  if  it  be  true  that  “the  prohibitory  law 
has  never  been  practically  in  effect,”  that  “it 
has  been  a disastrous,  tragic  failure,”  that  “the 
government  is  powerless  to  enforce  it,”  in 
what  way  does  it  interfere  with  the  personal 
liberty  of  those  who  would  drink  intoxicants? 

The  answer  is,  as  everybody  knows,  that  by 
reason  of  the  existence  of  national  prohibition, 
by  reason  of  its  practical  effect,  by  reason  of 
the  exertion  of  the  power  of  the  federal  govern- 
ment, the  traffic  in  liquor  is  becoming  day  by 
day  more  and  more  difficult  and  dangerous  to 
carry  on. 

As  the  application  of  the  federal  power 
grows  more  strict  and  the  manufacture  within 
the  country  and  importation  from  without 
become  more  restricted,  as  the  business 
becomes  more  difficult  and  dangerous,  the 
price  of  the  goods  dealt  in  rises,  and  right 
there  the  shoe  pinches;  right  there  is  the 
evidence  which  cannot  be  controverted,  that 

[10] 


the  federal  government  is  not  “powerless  to 
enforce”  the  law. 

I maintain  that  to  show  the  law — any  law — 
is  violated,  is  not  to  show  that  it  is  not  being 
enforced  or  that  it  cannot  be  enforced. 

If  that  argument  were  sound,  then  because 
crimes  of  murder,  rape,  robbery,  smuggling, 
stealing,  embezzlement  continue  to  be  com- 
mitted, we  must  say  the  penalties  against 
them  cannot  be  imposed. 

No  one  thinks  that. 

As  the  amount  of  liquor  available  for  con- 
sumption decreases  and  the  price  of  liquor  rises 
and  the  profit  per  quart  or  per  gallon  increases, 
new  and  keener  wits  and  ingenuity  are 
attracted  to  the  business,  new  and  complicated 
and  skillful  schemes  are  devised  for  evading 
the  law  and  constantly  increasing  watchful- 
ness, activity  and  study  required  for  their 
detection.  Many  of  them  go  on  for  a time 
without  detection.  But  ways  of  meeting  and 
overcoming  them  are  found — and  can  be  found 
for  all  of  them. 

Recently  some  one  made  an  argument  that 
the  great  increase  of  cases  in  court  for  violation 
of  the  prohibitory  law  is  an  indication  that  the 
law  is  not  being  and  cannot  be  enforced. 

I submit  that  that  increase  in  cases  in  court 
is  an  index  of  the  activities  which  have  resulted 
in  whisky  being  unobtainable  except  at  an 
expense  many  times  as  great  as  before  those 
activities  were  exerted  by  the  federal  govern- 
ment. 


[11] 


And  as  the  work  of  detection,  seizure  and 
arrest  resulting  in  such  cases  in  court  goes  on, 
the  extinction  of  the  traffic  draws  so  much 
nearer. 

That  this  traffic  may  be  declared  an  evil 
thing  and  may  be  abated  under  the  provisions 
of  the  now  existing  law  is  firmly  settled  by 
judicial  decision  of  the  highest  court. 

What  remains  in  the  way  of  its  complete 
abatement? 

The  temptation  to  make  money  in  the  traffic, 
created  by  those  who  either  willfully  or 
thoughtlessly  disregard  their  highest  obliga- 
tions to  their  country  and  themselves  and  offer 
and  pay  for  violation  of  the  law  a bribe  large 
enough  to  offset  the  danger  of  prosecution,  fine 
and  imprisonment. 

To  those  “thousands  of  the  best  citizens  of 
the  country  who  have  no  compunctions  what- 
ever about  violating  the  law”  I address  the 
question ; Upon  reflection,  having  called  to 
ycur  attention  what  your  action  really  means 
and  is  in  paying  an  outlaw  for  violating  the 
law  of  your  country  in  order  to  furnish  you 
the  means  of  gratifying  your  desire  for  drink, 
don’t  you  think  it  better  to  refrain  from  such 
bribery  in  the  future? 

Don’t  you  feel  that,  unless  you  so  refrain, 
there  may  be  some  doubt  about  your  being 
longer  entitled  to  the  designation,  “best  citi- 
zens of  the  country?” 

Can  you  afford  to  endanger  your  property, 
your  safety,  your  lives,  and  the  property, 

[12] 


safety  and  lives  of  your  wives  and  children  by 
teaching  and  practicing  the  doctrine  of  pur- 
chasing the  commission  of  crime? 

Laying  aside  for  the  moment  any  considera- 
tion of  your  duty  as  citizens,  does  not  your 
interest  lie  the  other  way? 

To  those  who,  after  considering  the  char- 
acter and  consequences  of  their  acts,  persist 
in  promoting  and  fostering  the  violation  of  the 
law,  I say  that  the  hand  of  punishment  shall 
fall  as  often  and  as  heavily  as  those  now 
charged  with  the  duty  of  administering  the  law 
can  cause  it  to  fall. 

To  you,  the  women  of  this  country,  I say, 
you  can  by  your  influence  and  your  votes 
secure  the  election  and  appointment  of  honest, 
faithful  administrative  officers  and  the  dis- 
charge and  retirement  of  those  who  prove  to 
be  dishonest,  unfaithful,  inefficient. 

More  than  this ; 

Remember  that  the  business  of  making, 
transporting  and  selling  liquor  is  not  entered 
upon  from  the  motives  which  incite  the  com- 
mission of  most  other  crimes — jealousy,  re- 
venge, sudden  anger,  ill  will  toward  society 
generally — but  only  for  profit. 

The  market  for  the  goods  is  the  whole 
foundation  of  the  great  cost  in  money,  time 
and  effort  of  suppression  of  the  traffic. 

You  can  see  to  it  that  at  no  social  event  in 
your  charge  shall  your  tables  be  disgraced  by 
the  presence  of  unlawful  liquor. 

You  can,  if  you  will,  make  the  serving  of 

[13] 


unlawful  liquor  at  social  functions  of  your 
acquaintances  so  unpopular  that  it  will  cease. 

Will  you  do  your  part? 

I notice  further  on  your  letterheads,  “Alle- 
giance to  the  Constitution”  on  the  one  side 
and  “Observance  of  Law”  on  the  other  side. 

With  two  such  supporters  staying  up  its 
hands,  enforcement  of  the  law  must  win. 

“Then  came  Amalek  and  fought  with  Israel 
in  Rephidim. 

“And  Moses  said  unto  Joshua:  Choose  us 
out  men  and  go  out  and  fight  with  Amalek; 
tomorrow  I will  stand  on  top  of  the  hill. 

“So  Joshua  did  as  Moses  had  said  to  him 
and  fought  with  Amalek,  and  Moses,  Aaron 
and  Hur  went  up  to  the  top  of  the  hill. 

“And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Moses  held  up 
his  hand  that  Israel  prevailed:  and  when  he 
let  down  his  hand  Amalek  prevailed. 

“But  Moses’  hands  were  heavy ; and  they 
took  a stone  and  put  it  under  him  and  he  sat 
thereon : and  Aaron  and  Hur  stayed  up  his 
hands,  the  one  on  the  one  side,  and  the  other 
on  the  other  side ; and  his  hands  were  steady 
until  the  going  down  of  the  sun. 

“And  Joshua  discomfited  Amalek  and  his 
people  with  the  edge  of  the  sword.” 


